Jim, I want The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day. As much as you wanted the Enterprise, I want this.

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes pic!
Yeah, this marks two Treks in a row, but I couldn’t help myself. When I posted that shot yesterday of Nimoy as Spock behind the camera that reminded me of another BTS pic I have featuring not just Spock, but the holy trinity: Spock, Bones, Kirk and then two behind the camera geniuses to boot.
Can’t say it’s the most dynamic shot possible from Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but the sheer talent on display is pretty amazing.
To make things perfectly clear for those that might not be as nerdy as me, from left to right is Leonard Nimoy, Gene Roddenberry, Robert Wise (sitting), DeForest Kelley and William Shatner. Live long and prosper!
Hope you guys enjoy the pic and make sure click for a bigger version!

If you have a pic you think should be included email me. I’m looking for the iconic, the rare or the just plain cool behind the scenes shots to feature here.
Tomorrow’s pic shows what I’m thankful for.
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Did they really think that we'd all wear browns and greys in the future, why abandon the colour of the series for the drab uni-tard look? So glad they at least added some colour come Wrath of Khan<P>But overall I think TMP is an underappreciated sci fi movie, it's very smart and dramatic, but Fans wanted the swashbuckling of star wars so TMP is considered slow and boring, but it's honestly a better film then the majority of Future Treks

West Side Story. The Day the Earth Stood Still. The Sound of Music. Editor of Citizen Kane. Winner of two directing Academy Awards. Not exactly a forgotten artist who worked on small misunderstood films. The man is a legend. That said, and only in my humble opinion, Star Trek TMP was awful. Just boring. Some great moments, surrounded by loooooooooong stretches of absolutely nothing happening but mundane special effects sequences intercut with the cast staring at a view screen supposedly showing them. Awful. Could probably be edited down to a fairly good 90 minute movie. Anyway, Wise is otherwise (no pun intended) great.

I'll paraphrase Plinkett and say for those of you who think TMP sucks because it's the "most boringest one," well, we'll never see eye-to-eye on it.<br>
<br>
It's my second favorite Trek film. Maybe it's because I'm just young enough to have missed TOS but old enough to sit for hours enthralled by Nova and Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Maybe it's because I knew how privileged we were to see that cast come together to make a movie. Maybe the ideas behind "In Thy Image" were the closest to hard sci-fi the Trek movies ever came, and it really made my 7-year-old mind think about BIG things. I don't know.<br>
<br>
But it takes us on a journey aboard a cool new Enterprise. It shows us how humungous she is in the first reel and then blows our minds by letting her be just a speck on the screen floating over V'ger's ship.<br>
<br>
The characters are in top form. Spock's arc is deeply touching. When he wakes up in sickbay after the mind meld with an understanding of V'ger's emptiness and how his Vulcan path was driving toward that same emptiness, his place with the crew and his captain because very real, very important to him. It changed the character for the rest of the films. Spock was no longer the easily wounded Vulcan foil to Bone's human shenanigans, but a fully-formed person who was able to embrace both side of his heritage.<br>
<br>
Admittedly, one element that always cracks me up is how many times Bones comes onto the bridge for some camera time, doesn't say much or anything, looks at what the devil they're looking at now, and leaves for sickbay again. They should install a view screen down there to save him the trip.<br>
<br>
Overall, every time I watch this movie I think about it's place in history. Trek suddenly found itself playing second banana to this Star Wars thing, and instead of trying to radically change the characters to match Wars's fairy tale, they dialed it back and presented us with a thinking man's movie. Shatner looks incredible here. They all do. So young and hungry and completely unaware of the film franchise they were spawning.<br>
<br>
"Spock, this "child" is about to wipe out every living thing on Earth. Now, what do you suggest we do? Spank it?"<br>
<br>
"It knows only that it needs, Commander. But, like so many of us... it does not know what."

The Haunting. The Set Up. Born to Kill. Odds Against Tomorrow. Run Silent Run Deep.
And, of course, The Sand Pebbles. In my opinion, his masterwork. A criminally underrated historical epic that is up there with David Lean's best. Steve McQueen's greatest acting role. Consistently on my top ten favorite movie list. Why is it nearly forgotten today? A tragic oversight, if you ask me.

The sheer joy as a kid when I watched this movie. Particularly the long slow pass over the Enterprise in the beginning, and the look of love on Shatner's face. I have loves space my whole life, due in no small part to Star Trek.

and calling it "The Motionless Picture" makes me sad. This is a wonderful film, and actually delves into a meaningful story. Anyone who gets bored with it probably has a short attention span. But that is most of society anyway.

I was six years old and this was the very first movie that my parents ever took to me to. I had never seen any Star Trek before this and I was simply captivated. Sure, it's not as flashy as the other outings but it still holds a fond place in my movie-going memories.

Had a great story about humanity and what it means to be human. Taught Spock that not everything can be explained or solved with logic. Yes, it slow and methodical in it;s story telling. Then again, most 'hard' science fiction is that way.

The most pyjama-wearing Star Trek party of them all! See Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura stare blankly for hours at the viewscreen! Chekov isn't staring, he's screaming! He burned his hand! Look! A bald woman! In man-pyjamas! Hairpiece! Klingons! (no pyjamas for those guys- they've been bad.) See Scotty getting fat, and carrying a strange man-boy that was burned, while crying! And he wasn't even drunk!
Look! It's the Enterprise! There it is again! Yawn...so much Enterprise. Gotta sleep now.

I watched this again recently and it wasn't as slow or as boring as I remembered it. I liked it a lot more this time. See what some added years will do? The Enterprise pass over is majestic. Persis Khambatta is the only sexy bald chick I have ever seen. Her legs were miles long in that short little robe thing. Nice. Give it another look-see if it has been years since you last saw it.

Wonderfully shot and acted with a deep, philosophical core. Awesome money shots of the Enterprise and a clever, unexpected ending. Very different than the rest of the series but stands in a unique position in the films to feature the original crew.

We all seek our creator, but if we find him/her/it, we'll not be satisfied. <br /><br />For me, the movie is full of great moments; like the Vulcan language which almost sounds English. I'm convinced she still says something like "It stirs your human half, Spock" with some dodgy accent.<br /><br />Or the nonchalant way Scotty deals with General Order 2020. "When that much matter and anti-matter come together? Aye lad, we will."<br /><br />And one moment which happened off camera, but was retold by Nichelle Nicols in a documentary. "I'm standing in the midst of living legends."

Geekoid dogma bullshit makes it as if it's one of thw worst Star Trek movies. Well, dogmatic geekoids are fucking wrong. Too bad they can appreciate a truly good and true Star Trek movie. i guess they either prefer the ones which ar emore action packed (like the very good Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Kahn) or the total complete retad bullshit like Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK, the biggest (= crappiest) STINO (Star Trek In Name Only) piece of bullshit shit ever made in the whole history of mankind.<br><br>Star Trek: The Motion Picure is a truly very good movie, and i pity the fools who can't understand why.

"Sorry, this could not go without comment. Where exactly is there something terribly dynamic in Star Trek: The Motion Picture?"<br><br>There is if you are the kind of person who remmebers to turn on the brain once in a while. for the mindless brianless fucks, there's always Jar Jar Abrams's COMPLETLY RETARD PIECE OF SHIT TREK.

Robert Wise is indeed an underrated director. That fact you forgot to mention his best movie, THE SAND PEBBLES, is quite telling. and as long STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is not seen as one of the best St movie ever made, both his movie and wise will still be considered as an underrated director. You also failed to mention THE HAUNTING. Yes, Wise is a legend indeed. A forgotten, underrated legend even among the geekry, specially those who think that hacks like Bay and Abrams are good filmmakers worthy of admiration and love.

I'd watch ST:TMP anyday of the week over that pussy ass retard fucking piece of shit Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK. I rate smart very well made movies like TMP over complete cynical incompetence bullshit like the Jar Jar's crapfiest.

You said it, brother. And i noticed that today there's more appreciation for TMP then it used to. And i say, this movie will only get better received as time goes by. The bullshit about it is starting to dissipate and people are starting to realise the movie really is a damn good one. Only the stupid retards still clingue to the stupid wrong notion that there is little merit to it, because those pussies were expecting a Star Wars rip off and instead got a thinking man's Sf movie. Because for those pussies, thinking is a too hard thing to do. I both pity them and pity them not.<br><br>Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a damn good movie. Damn good movie.

Great to see so much love for THE SAND PEBBLES. That movie blew my mind. On eof the most sophisticated, smart movie i ever seen in my whole life. And Steve McQueen's acting is nothing short of magistral. And i'm not one of his fans. Good to see a fellow geek who also has so much love for THE SAND PEBBLES. Criminally underrated movie if you ask me.

ST:TMP was made for fans. It's a love affair with Star Trek. The long lingering shots of the Enterprise are examples of that. If you want a pure action film it isn't for you, but if you love the original series then this is the last pure example of Roddenberry's vision, certainly before the Federation became more militaristic in the later movies.

What? You didn't liked the brewery set for the enterprise engine room in your beloved Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK movie? I mena, you are always kissing the ass of that movie and the retard hacks who made it. and ar eyou telling me you are finding their most inspired choice, filming the engine room at a brewery, is not the best Enterprise engine room ever made? Why, i'm suprised, who would think you could do critical though?

What the hell do you think StarFleet was? A botanist convention?<br /><br />War with Romulans, invading the Gorn hegemoney, the aborted war with the Klingons? Apparently both sides wanted that war so much, it took a peace of the biggest guns to stop it. (Organians)<br />

Roddenberry wanted to creat a military organization without the assholeness and nationalistic bullshit that unfortunatly informs most of the armed forces OF THE WHOLE WORLD. His ides was military men who were men of arms and also scientists and philosophers. and in his show and in most of the TOS movies it was suceeded. In Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK, however, that fucking hackboy Abrams turned the whole of ST into a high school.

i went through the TNG collection first and it looks gorgeous. i just watched Parts 1 and 2 last night and i dont get all the negative reviews regarding the picture as it looked great on both, especially the first. can't count how often i read reviews that give the impression a blu-ray transfer isnt good only to see it myself and realize its great.

I can't believe I am turning into this weird geezer as I get older, but I, too, have started to come around on the TMP uniforms. When some iteration of Trek needs to design new ones, I hope they take a cue from these.

If it has a number in the title - it's good.
If it doesn't - it's rubbish.
The Motion Picture has a few nice moments but it's dull and ugly and stupid. And Shatner's toupee is at it's most offensive here - it looks like it was carved out of wood or something.

I love ST: TMP, the Director's Cut. It's the best of the movies, even though Khan obviously is a lot of fun. What hurts it are the miscalculations: the costumes and the beauty shots. The movie didn't emotionally connect for me until the DC came out, then, on the bridge, when Spock realizes V'gers mission--I was wiped out. Whatever they changed, it worked. Only movie so far that walks the same walk as the series, which is why James Cawley is the real inheritor of the Trek mantle. He caught lightning in a bottle in a way Abrams..I was going to say " can only dream of" but he could care less. He's not interested. It's a vehicle, that's it. It's nice vehicle, with cool ships and shiny costumes and Famous Characters, and that's as much as he gets it, or ever will.

I meant to say, TMP is, like a series, a strategy for looking at the human condition. The rest of the movies are strategies for looking at Star Trek, as is the new movie. Boring. Geekdom only really works if it's not IN the movie itself. When it is, it's like somebody cutting you off when you're telling a joke and snorting out the punchline ahead of you.

..and I'm not a member of the 'ADHD Generation', which is a phrase some people throw around to seem 'witty' when someone else doesn't agree with their opinion of a film's pacing. This film would be better serviced by having 30 minutes trimmed of the beauty shots trimmed from it. I remember seeing this in a theater and staring in awe as Scotty and Kirk flew around the Enterprise, and then five minutes later going 'WTF?' as they continued to do the flyaround. And as someone mentioner earlier, the story was a recycled version of 'The Changeling'. I understand the movie was Roddenberry's 'love letter' to the fans for their devotion and support over the years, but I didn't wait for 20 years to watch people watch stuff. Some lens flaring would have been a welcome addition. (That being said, 'Sand Pebbles' is a truly underrated masterpiece, and 'magistral' is a product for men with prostate problems.)

If you are going to compare to masyturbation, then enjoying ST:TMP is like masturbating at a picture of Monica Belucci. enjoying Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK is like masturbating at a picture of Jar Jar Abrams. One is quite understandable, the other is just all kinds of wrong.

The engine room of the enterprise in Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK was indeed shot in a beer brewery, Budwieser's brewery to be exact. Abrams says so himself in the audio comentary. And ye,s it is hillarious indeed, and also a clue into how fucking clueless the hacks who made that movie are. Whsat blows my mind is that with a budget of 160 milliosn, and with no real stars to waste lots of money to, how thr fuck could those clowns mismannaged the budget so much they had to cut corners by shooting the enterprise engine room on a real location, and a beer brewery at that? In what did those clowns wasted so much money from that gigantic budget (160 million dollars, man, 160 MILLION dollars!!) on that they had to resort to such no-budget movie tricks? Jar Jar Abrams and his fellow Abramsnittes must be the most incompetent wasteful filmmakers in the whole of Hollywood.

Also, the enthusiasm about Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK has died out a bit when the dist settled. Many people who hated the movie but didn't said their piece because they were overwhlemed by the mindless brainless gushing for that stupid retard movie, they have now found their courage to say what they really think about that piece of shit. Things are no longer that rosy for the Jar Jar Abram's latest piece of shit movie.

Abrams' juvenile tripe had such huge plot holes that you could drive an alien cloud 82AUs in diameter through them.<br><br>
Let's spend ages drilling a hole to the planet's core leaving the ship vulnerable to attack when the red matter can create a black hole anywhere!<br><br>
Let's stand here and gawp at the view screen instead of moving the ship away from the giant black hole about to suck the ship in!<br><br>
Let's dump Kirk on the one planet that conveniently enough has the one man who can deliver all the exposition and the one man able to do magical transporter jumps across vast light years!<br><br>
Let's ignore science and have super novas that can travel faster than the speed of light and big enough to destroy the entire galaxy as well as black holes that do time travel!<br><br>
Fucking waste of space film, you can tell Kurtzman and Orci wrote it. It's got the same brain dead writing they do for TINO. Roddenberry is probably spinning in his grave at warp speed at the thought of a sequel.

All that story about the quality of a Star Trek movie have to do with the number is one of the most retard stupid idioticies i ever heard in my life. It's the type of geekoid dogmatic bullshit that makes me sick to my stomach. All that story about the even numbered ST movies are the good ones and the odd number being the bad is just total stupid bullshit. Dogmatic stupid retard fucking bullshit. By the way, Jar Jar Abrams's BULLSHIT TREK is an odd numbered ST(INO) movie.

All the things you say that made the movie better and made a strong emotional imnpact to you already existed in the movie before the Director's cut version. The DC mostly trimed down some long Special Effects shots and they added an exterior shot of the V'Ger. The acting stuff is all about the same in the two movies, with maybe one minor sigle scene left out. So, basically, all the stuff that made it connect to you in the movie was always there. If you ask me, the reason why you connected more with the movie afterwards was because you were older and more appreciative of the stuff presented in the movie, more then when you first saw it as a teen or a child. Contrary to popular belief, the differences between the origial cut and the director's cut of ST:TMP are very minimal.

And what exactly did you do to help bring Trek back into the mainstream? Abrams is not a hack like Bay. He infused much more into the film than "blowing shit up." Im sick of hearing this Bay comparison. Its just a really uneducated point of view. Youre just pissed that it wasnt *exactly* how you envision Trek. No one could please you with a new version of Trek, face it. Abrams is a hack. Yeah. I am laughing at the "superior intellect."

It was a good mindless action movie. As long you never take any time to think it's fun. And the movie does a good job distracting you from thinking. <br><br>
But that's all it was. Mindless fun.<br><br>
It was a competently put together Michael Bay movie. And that's fine. But its not Star Trek. At least not good Star Trek.

Though it stole from "The Changeling" AND intensively from "One Of Our Planets Is Missing"! <p> Most people tend to forget about that TAS episode. The whole cloud thing and pretty much everything is in that animated episode! <p> Go watch and prove me wrong!

"Abrams is not a hack like Bay"<br><br>No, because unlike Bay, Abrams does know how to sell a movie. It's the only talent he has, but it's one talent mor ethen Bay. On that, yes, i agree, Abrams is better then Bay... barely. But in filmmaking and script wisdom, Abrams is as bad as Bay. beside,s to say that Abrams is not as bad as Bay is like being happy because he is not like the worst director in the whole history of world cinema. Talk about being damned with faint praise.

Great authors always live. do you unbderstand the concept of an author's immortality through their work? You ever heard of William Shakespeare? That's it. And by the way, he died of AIDS becaus eof a blood transfusion. i bet you were already making the typical retard conclusion that many ignorants do about the subject.

Nothing inherently wrong with what abrams did, but it ain't Star Trek. For one thing, Star Trek was a series for adults, and JJTrek is a series for frat boys. If you're a frat boy, great, and if not, not so great. MOON was, for example, a movie for adults. SUNSHINE was. ST:TMP was. JJTrek is not. This is a terrific time to be 10-14 years old, I will say that, without any irony intended. Can you imagine? Green Lantern! But adults have to look elsewhere, and I'm just not that interested in films for the kids any more. Frankly, I haven't been since about 1979.

Guess again buddy! I knew he got it from a blood transfusion just like Predator(I looked on Wikki and everything)but it was a cheap shot just waiting to be taken. You've shamed us all with your outburst.

Yesteryear. <br /><br />Basic plot, Spock finds himself in a "present" which is not his own. The first officer of the Enterprise is an Andorian. In examining the records, they find a young Spock died long before ever joining Starfleet. Spock must go back in time to "fix" what had changed in the past. This involves him going to Vulcan during the period where he was a child, and saving his life. In doing so, he encounters Sarek, his father.<br /><br />You know, given how litigious Harlan Ellison is, I am fucking amazed that he didn't sue the crap out the author of this cartoon, for infringing on his Twilight Zone story "One Life Furnished In Early Poverty". Possibly because his own story was a rip off of Rod Serling's "Walking Distance". Who knows.

that happened to be awesome if you were a kid- robocop comes to mind. Today's pg13 world has never been sadder or more hypocritical. The only thing good about the watered down shit we have to put up with today is that our mafia overlords have to watch the same shit. It's the by-product of the world they've created and they have to watch it too unless they have a secret island of blockbuster film crews that make private movies for cheney's bunker and the like. No it seems as we grow more in thrall to evil our entertainment grows more bland in a pathetic attempt to distract us from the evil. Joker unloads twin barrels in a guy's face but there's no blood. Very much the way Americans and NATO forces targeted school buses to help those who pay us the most- but you never see that blood till the documents are declassified years later(yeah we did 911 too and no-those war profits don't trickle down to you-you are there to be shaken down like the shop owner pawn you are). But I digress- Trek tmp is simply the only movie that captures the true spirit of star trek through and through. After that everything was militarized. The whole idea is a world so advanced that we could relax a bit and ponder the higher meanings. Afterall you'd never get in a gun fight when you have a phaser set to wide-beam stun that can instantly subdue a crowd of thousands like in that old episode. So much for continuity. The whole thing degenerated into pchoo, pchoo shootouts like old western shows. Love the new movie though except for the gigantic flaws,terrible location footage of beer kegs with computer stations in front of them,etc. When I watch it I just have to go to the bathroom during those moments same as gweedo scene

Indeed. His THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is still a very watchable movie, and somehow it's still quite pertinent to the world situation of today. I have the DVD, and the audio comentary between Wise and Nicholas Meyer is extremely informative and entertaining. and i don't think that it's any coincidence that the two directors of the two first Star Trek movies are together making a comentary track. It's quite obvious that Meyers is in awe and is a fan of Wise, as he should.

INCEPTION is indeed very much like those blockbusters of old, when filmamekrs presumed that adults watched movies too, and when the kids had to catch up, forcing us to smart up our game and inspiring us to grow. A Christopher Nolan Star Trek movie would had be sweet. But i still think the right man to make a new Star Trek movie would be Ronald D. Moore. The man has Star Trek running in his veins, he truly understands it. I would cut off the balls of Jar Jar Abrams, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman and burn them as offerings to the Gods Of Cinema if i knew that would make them bless us with a Star Trek movie directed and supervized by Ronald D. Moore.

I found it surprisingly compelling. Some of the design choices are still a little off-putting, but I now appreciate its slow, chewy, ruminative style. And some of the effects work looks absolutely terrific: couldn't tell how much of that was as a result of clean-up, and how much was great in the first place. (Trumbull is usually excellent, but I seem to recall many shots ended up having to be rushed for the punishing release schedule.)

It's one of those very rare movies which has a major problem and stupid idiotic decision in each and every single minute of it's screentime. I'm not being funny or hyperbolic, Jar Jar Abram's SHIT TREK has a major stupid decision or a crass narrative mistake in each of it's minute of screentime. The movie is a real Shit-A-Minute movie. I never dreamt that i would watch such a movie outside of Michael Bay's career. Jar Jar Abrams's RETARD TREK is mind blowing in that regard. There is not a single minute of that shitfierst i could mistake for fun or entertaiming. The movie is one of the most depressing experience si ever suffered in my whole life as a movie fan. And i watched MARTYRS. But that movie was made depressing on porpose, while Jar Jar Abram's VOMITOUS TREK is depressing because of how badly made and stupid it is. There's moments i think i just had a nightmare and dreamed the whole thing, that in true it doesn't exist, nor the stupid mindless favorable brainless gushing over it, that mandkind is not that dumb.

How could i had forgotten about "The Andromeda Strain"? That movie is brillant, just brillant. Everything in it is done right. Damn good movie. The mroe i know about Robert Wise's career, the more in awe I am of him. THE SAND PEBBLES blew my mind. That movie is just brillant, it's Stanley Kubrick/Orson Welles good, and i can't give a higher compliment then that. It still doesn't make me like THE SOUND OF MUSIC, though. I just can't.

The special effects workload was so big in STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE that about ten different SFX teams were need to make the movie. The problem was not that Trumbul couldn't make them, but that they had a very thigh small production schedule for such a big movie with so many special effects shots. In the original version, one can see that the quality of the SFX does change somewhat from scene to scene. And there is some SFX shots in the ST:TMP director's cut which were left unchanged and untouched by CGI because they were so good and well made they still stand to today's standards.

... the movie costed 45 million dollars to make. 45 millions of 1979's dollars, which is more or less equivalent of today's 150 millions. But the truth of the matter is that that is not right. In fac,tthe movie was cheapper to produce, it costed 25 millions. That was the production pricetag, at the tiem of release. The other 20 millions was all the money that paramount spent on the pre-production of the aborted phase Ii Tv show and pre-production on two aboted ST movies that went as far as into pre-production but were scrapped. paramount just added the price of those aborted projects and put inot the bill of ST:TMP. It's not uncommon. Recently, WB did the same with SUPERMAN RETURNS, they put inot that movie's pricetag the expenditure they had with 12 years of pre-production of numerous aborted Superman movies and the play-or-pay deals they with with many directors and stars, which inflated SR real budget of 150 millions into 250 millions.<br><br>So, basically, ST:TMP was cheapper then most people dogmatically beleive it did, but also, the move made mor emoney at the box office then most thing it did. in fac,t the movie earned twice more then the inflated 45 millions dollars false budget. If we think the move was actually made on a 25 million dolalrs budget, then we see that the movie was a big box office hit. In fact, in a relation of buck for buck, ST:TMP made more money for each of it's budget buck at the box office then Jar Jar Abram's SHIT TREK, which their filmmakers lied about it being the most sucessful ST movie ever made. So, that Jar Jar Abrams' SHIT TREK misetralbe piec eof shit movie can't even have that to boast. All it has is lies and lies and lies. And total fucking stupidity.<br><br>STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE has it all: it's a smart story made at an adult level, it's entralling (if you have the brainpower superior of a retard 6 years old), it's gorgeaus to look at, the actors are all pretty good, and last but not the least, an incredible and truly memoraly score by the great Jerry Goldsmith. How can people not like this movie?

You said it, man. The flying around the enterprise scene is what made me fall inlove with ST:TMP. That scene works on so many levels. It portaits kirk's love for his ship, and it put us the audience in his heart. On a more subtle level, it gives us the audience a sense of scale about how big the Enterprise is compared to a human, which makes it look huge, dwarfing any aircraft carrier that exists today. And later, when we see the Enterprise being so dwarfed and made miniscule compared to the V'Ger, we get to understand the hugeness of the problem the crew of the enterprise is facing, and cause of a sense of wonder and awe about the whole thing. And you cna only pull that stuff sucessfully if you take your time shooting the scenes and slow down the movie to show the whole scenario of the situation. The movie goes for mood, which is inperative and fundamental to tell this story sucessfully and well. You can't deliver this type of spectacle on quick edited MTV type editing. Robert Wise was a very wise filmmaker, pardon the pun. small wonde,r he started as an editor, and he edited CITIZEN KANE, th best movie ever made in the histor yof cinema. I rather trust the decision of editor of Citizen Kane in how to make a Star Trek movie then the decision of the lying fuck who lied through his teeth about how he was the only creator of LOST (and then again he only created the bad stuff in that stupid show, anyway).

That scene deeply disturbed me as a kid and it still does. I'm amazed we haven't seen more "gross" transporter stuff in the history of Trek. Also the cold manner in which V'Ger digitizes everything in its path freaked me out too... like Nomad but the data-hoarding version. The destruction of the Klingons and the Epsilon 9 station always gave me the heebie-jeebies.

"You know it IS possible to like TMP and the new one too"<br><br>I have seen lies like that from the Michael Bay fans. Usuially, the Bay fans say shit like "it's possible to be a fan of Martin Scorsese and Michael Bay too". Which is a lie. The typicla lie that fans of shit pull to try to make a "convincing" argument for their case. Which is not convicing at all.<br><br>So, buddy, spare me that shit, OK? just admit you like shit movies and the onyl thing you liked in TMP was some superficial cool looking stuff like the engine room. Which, incidently, that's how an engine room in a ship in the Star Trek universe shouLd look like. Instead of a brewery!

Indeed. I have to say, the spectacle and the stakes at play in ST:TMP blew my mind when i first saw it as a young teen. Somebody said before in this talkback that ST:TMP move works brillantly to those who back then saw such TV shows as COSMOS and are in awe at the universe and it's wonders and mysteries. And he's dead right. ST:TMP is a movie that works if you have a sense of wonder and awe, if you really love the subject of space and the future, and if you never bored with contemplating the beauty of the universe. ST:TMP is a movie for those who can see beyond their front porch and who dare to dream and imagine.

<p>One of the things I loved most about ST:TMP was seeing the Enterprise fully rendered in all its glory. I was fascinated by all the little touches with the labeling and lighting - especially on the saucer section. I tried to get my own Enterprise model to look as good. One thing that pissed me off was that in ST3, the Admiral says that the Enterprise is 25 years old and not worth salvaging! WTF?! The Enterprise was state of the art in ST:TMP!!</p>
<p>Also, who could forget the Enterprise going into warp speed? If you were raised on TNG you probably take that for granted, but seeing that on the big screen for the first time was exhilarating. Certainly as cool as ships going into hyperspace in SW.</p>

I put the movie in more than any other just to relax. My theater has been showcased in magazines like absolute sound and AV interiors and has a music stage better than anything I've heard in LA. When that base-line hits on the full reveal of the enterprise-the floor drops out of the room and chills are sent up your spine on cue. Ok Asimov here's one thing right about the new trek- the score. The best trek scores tell the story at hand and with the latest one we finally got the young ass-kicker score we never had the opportunity to have before. If you put the new score first it really works. The other scores then tell of an older crew.

... not even close. The majestic fly-by scene was wonderful except it lasts about three minutes too long. It's SEVEN FUCKING MINUTES LONG! 90% of the movie going audience - yes, even die-hard Trek fans - were PUT TO SLEEP by this sequence. You know, for everything "right" that was done under Wise's command, I can name two things done wrong. Most blatantly, THE MOVIE HAD FAR TOO MANY DRAGGING SCENES IN IT. Floating through V'ger lasted for fucking EVER. EVEN THE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FILM ADMIT TO THE SLOW PACE BEING DETRIMENTAL. it's pretty sad when the best sequence is in the middle of the film.... yeah, the worm hole. Shades of fucking Superman Returns.

Ok so they killed the entire planet vulcan. Why not slingshot around the sun and fix that? That's pretty bad. I don't think that's just god's will. They should fix that. But it's nice to kill off the old aliens I'm sick of

It's in that 1970s tradition of science fiction that takes its time on the screen. I am never "put to sleep" by those "dragging" scenes, I find them mesmerizing, which was the idea. Goldsmith's score and the visuals are perfectly matched. It's SO huge that it belittles the human characters a bit, but given that the entire movie is about VAAAAAST stuff, I loved it. It reminds me a lot of Arthur C Clarke's work (Rendezvous with Rama and so forth)... the kind of stuff that gives you the feeling that humans are ridiculously small and the universe is awe-inspiringly large.

That opening was probably the last time we'll have anything remotely familiar with the Trek we all know and love. I think I'd actually watch an entire series based on the adventures of the U.S.S. Kelvin if it meant keeping to what was intended with the original Trek. The Enterprise series was pure garbage. The last movie was the muddy earth that was used to finally bury the franchise. What we'll get from now on is mindless shit for reality TV douchetards stamped with the Trek name.
Sidenote: anyone else notice how similar in visual style J.J. Abrams' directing technique is to Michael Bay's? Both were never able to shake that commercial-style. Explains why they're movies are so empty headed, at least Michael Bay has no shame about it whereas J.J. uses writers with at least half a brain to put sentences together.

The flyby Enterprise scenes are just part of the dichotomy of Star Trek. They played to the contingent of fans that saw the ship as the constant, the star of the show (i.e. the technology of tomorrow) albeit perhaps a bit overdone. It was more than an homage. PJ's King Kong was similar in that it was a 3 hr love affair with the movie, and not the story. STTMP's was tolerable...PJ's KK, well, not so much.

<p>Decker: Voyager 6 disappeared into what they used to call a Black Hole.</p>
<p>So what do you call them nowadays if you don't use the term Black Hole? Why not use that term instead of an old outdated term?</p>
I always had a good laugh over that.

that the theater full of execs and Trek motivated persons was dead quiet when the lights came on and someone (I forget who, maybe Katzenburgh) was seen looking aghast because they just threw $40 mil in the toilet. SO successful was TMP that the studio almost refused to greenlight another Trek film. So don't give me this "oh TMP was successful bullshit."

Kinda funny to read what happened on ST:TMP from Leonard Nimoy's POV.. Did you know that the film's length is a result of problems in post production? Or that the theatrical cut and VHS cuts of the film were differnent because of the critical backlash?

they wanted their own SW franchise with ST. they miscalculated. that is why a TV producer (Harve Benett) was brought onboard for the second 8and so on) ST's. that guy cut back all the production costs.
THEY REUSED SHOTS AND MODELS FROM ST1. I always thought that was kinda pathetic. Even do the ILM did a great job on ST2.

I believe that's the only cartoon episode that was so good it was more or less promoted to "canon" status. It's a great time travel story and also a great "boy and his pet" story. I bet Spock has to hide a tear at the end of "Old Yeller" just like everybody else.

But the studio got a different production team after TMP because it went over budget and was barely finished in time.... As per Leonard Nimoy... He said if they had another 6 months it would have been a way different movie.

...of the movies with the original cast. I could never figure out why folks say it looks "cheap". It obviously cost a fortune. Even with the adjustment for special effects getting cheaper later on, this movie glitters like a Christmas tree (almost to a fault)

Are you kidding me? The score for the Jar Jar Abrams's NuTrek is abominable! It's the kind of pseudo-serious bullshit i have seen countless times from the Micahel Bay and Jerry Bruckheiemr bullshit movies. Remember the choir music used at the climax, when Nero's ship is destroyed? You know what was the lyrics of the choir singing? The name of the dead pets of the composer. That's how fucking serious that assclown took his job! The score is piss and shit, man! Not even on the score can the NuTrek save his ass. It's a bad dumb score for a bad dumb movie. I'm not easily fooled by that type of cheap melodramatic trickery.

Star Trek The Motion Pictures doesn't need to be perfect for me to love it. I lovwe it because it's a good movie. and frankly, the geekoids have played too much it's so-called "flaws", when me, i see so much good and strong in it that renders whatever "flaws" it might have as essencially moot. The exact inverse happens with Jar Jar Abrams's SHIT TREK. adn what boggles my mind is how the geekoids always play up the minimal falws in really good movies to trash them down and go compeltly blind and act like blind sheeps and porposely look away from the many flaws and mistakes of truly shitty movies like Jar Jar Abrams's latest. Why the hell they do this is beyond me.

And by the way, the introduction to the enterprise scene last how much it neded to last. Robert Wise was an editor, adn he knew exactly well how long a scene needed to last to deliver the emotional impact it needed to. That scene is filmic perfection, storytelling in it's most cinemtic form, using image and music and pacing and elegant editing. That scene is one perfect reason why the movie is so good, and it's edited to eprfection. It last as much as it needed, and in some ways, i wouldn't evne had minded it would had lasted 3 more minutes, because it's pure film magic.

and what they got was 2001. It was almost void of personality, humor, or emotion. Yes, again, I actually love it but I also dislike a lot of it due to it's lack of humanity. TOS had charm, personality, action and a sense of drama. TMP could have been fantastic but instead it practically shit the bed.

Scietists don't actualyl call black holes as black holes exactly, they use such expressiosn as singularities. Black hole isa layman's term, and scientists use them when they talk to laymen. But there is a specific scientific terminology to the so-called black holes. And in fac,t the very expression black hole is obsolete because to call a body black means that it doesn't emit or reflect any electromagnetic energy (aka, light), and that is not true to Black holes, they do emit light in the gama ray wavelenght, which has been observed. -he firstman to postulate the theoretical evidence for that was non other then Stephen Hawkings himself. It was his work on "black holes" which made him a scientist super-star. so, no, even today black holes are not called that too. Not by science, anyway. It's just a colloquial term. In the Star Trek future (meaning, the real Star Trek, not the Jar Jar Abrams's retard abomination) they live in a society that's much more science savvy.

After Abrams is through squeezing money out of Star Trek, and Americans have completely lost the ability to produce adults...
...the next take on Classic Trek will be even worse than his.
Reason? Adult fare requires an adult audience. As a culture, America doesn't make those (adults) any more. We prefer permanent adolescence, because adolescents buy worthless stuff, in the hope that it will make up for missing parts of their character. Adults only buy what they need, so they're useless to the kind of economy we've created. Unintended consequences. :-)
Reading What Technology Wants, in between bouts of reading Richard Brody's book about Godard and Life by Keith Richards. Head...swimming with...thoughts...must...stop the madness.

Got my info from Leonard Nimoy's autobiography "I am Spock" - Douglas Trumbull's FX house was the 2nd one they used because the 1st SF company batched every SF shot.... Acutally similar to what happened to Lucas with the 1st SW movie.

The builslhit is that TMOP wasn't sucessful. It was sucessful, so much so that convinced Paramont to make MORE Star Trek movies. Albeit with minor budgets, yes, but the reason for that was because Paramount changed the heads of the studio when it was bought by Viacom in the early 80s. And the new heads of studio were not too keep to spend as much as they did in a SF movie, specially a cerebral adn adult SF movie, which was, actually, what 70s SF was. Even with ST they decided to go more for an adventure serial style, which was not too far from the TOS style, so it worked. But the new Paramount regime was notiously penny-pitching, and Paramout stoped making the peics that it's name was associated with and started making bullshit pop pap like Breakdance and Beverly Hill Cop.<br><br>TMP made at the box offcice mroe then twice it's artificially inflated budget. And that mvoie's budget was artificially inflated because Paramout put inot that movie the 20 millions they had previously spent on other abondned and aborted Star Trek projects, which included a failed TV show which had been well into mid-season pre-production when they puleld the plug, and two ST movies (one of them to be directed by Philip Kauffman) which had extensive special effects preparation and set design until they were also cut short. The real production budget of the finished movie for TMP was 25 millions. And the movie made more then that and then some at the box office. TMP didn't do Star Wars number,s but it was a major sucess. Of cours,e the movie might had been a disapopintment for Paramount if they though they had another Sta Wars sucess on their hand,s which was a stupid dream to have anyway. The myth that TMP was a flop is just bulslhit invented by the new regime at Paramount to make the older regime look bad, a tactic that happens all the time in Holywood's studios whenever there's a change of guard. Read about it. That bullshit about TMP not making money is also so convineitn for Jar Jar Abrams and his midnless zombie fanboys to spread lies so thattheir fuckign misery bulslhit of a shit of a movie BREWERY TREK can play the major sucess card and be lableled as the savior of Star Trek. Which is all a pile of bullshit.

There's lack of humanity in ST:TMP? Maybe you mean that thre's a lack of melodramatism in ST:TMP. And for that i thank the movie and it's filmamkers. Thank you for that! Amen! I can do with a little less melodramatism in my good SF, thank you very much. Well, me, i find lots and lots of human moment sin ST:TMP. Lots. They aren't melodramatic, and the better for it. Wise was notorious for favouring subtlery and understatment over melodrama, and he was a wise man, that Robert Wise guy. This is why he was such a great director. And why ST:TMP realçly qworks as a good movie, instead as of a cheap SW knock-off that Paramount might had wanted, or the dumb stupid retard braindeads at the audiences. But it doens't matter, because finally they got it now, thanks to Jar Jar Abrams and his mega-shit of a movie.

name and there is a reason for that.a black hole is used to distinguish a singularity which is in the center of an event horizon from singularities without event horizons aka naked singularities.and that because a singularity refers more to the distortion of the space-time continuum rather than the point in space where the mass of a star is infinitely completely to itself.singularities can be created without stars,at least that's wyat some of the theory tells us and i think there was a bet about it between Hawking and Thorn.

<p>then why didn't it wipe the gunk off its side and realize that it was Voyager 6? Really bad writing there.</p>
<p>I also have to wonder why they just didn't transfer Kirk and co. to a fully functioning starship right away instead of wasting precious time repairing the Enterprise. Starfleet has a fleet of what, thousands of ships. But no, they just fart around fixing the Enterprise while the fate of Earth and other planets is at stake. Smart command logic there.</p>
<p>Don't even get me started on Star Trek V. Actually, get me started. How could Sybok know that the Enterprise's transporters weren't working? Was he precognitive as well as nutty? You know what. Forget it. I'll be here all night if I tear that one apart any further.</p>

The (largely) off-model, sterile, dry characterizations in TMP were a couple of steps away from those in Space:1999. There were several good moments in the film but there is no way a true TOS fan would accept these characterizations 100% or that they line up with those in the original series. Dry as a lesbian at Chippendales.

AsimovLives: ..."the real Star Trek, not the Jar Jar Abrams's retard abomination)...live in a society that's much more science savvy."
Oh! You mean the real Star Trek crew of IV, who zip back in time by going around the sun? Or the "Generations" universe, where a rocket fired from the surface of a planet reaches its sun instantaneously?
Abram's Trek may have its pluses and minuses, but it is no more "illogical" scientifically than ANY of the other Trek plots, TV or film. NONE of them are really hard sci-fi. Get your facts straight before you start beating your dead horse again.

So they blew up Vulcan, big deal. It gives them the opportunity to make more movies without having to stick with the continuity. Its better than a reboot. I don't like TMP because its so slow. When I watch Star Trek I want Star Trek, not 2001. I want some cool sci-fi fun, not thought provoking messages.

LOL now THAT is a statement based on facts. Trek, like a lot of sci-fi film, has all kinds of holes in it's "science". I guess it's just convenient to bitch about something you hate by ripping on anything and everything.

Hem? Come again? What was the point of your post? To try to excuse the bullshit in Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK? That's the best you can do, using "if they did it wrong before, it's perfectly acceptable to do wrong now" excuse? What kind of lame ass excuse is that? quality in negativity? Give me a break, man. You fans of Jar Jar Abram's BREWERY TREK come up with the most wacky mindless stuff imaginable. This love for the dumb is just weird.

A black hole is a ONE TYPE of singularity. Black hole is a colloquial term, not strictly science. Many science shows still go with the term black hole because it's very well know and those are popular science shows made for the pleasure of a non-scientist audience, not hardcore tech stuff.

... in that a black hole is not an hole, and it's not black. It's not a hole because there are no holes in space, the black hole is just a an object with a great gravitational pull caused by very compressed matter in a very small volume, and the black hole does have a surface and mass and a body for things to fall into) and they aren't black because they do indeed emit electromagnatic emisisons in the spectrum of the gamma rays. Thus, it's why the term black hole is not scientific and it's not used by scientists when dealing with them scientifically with the proper scientific terminology. a scientist might speak to you about a black hole because he doesn't want to alienate you with the correct but complex proper scientfic terminology.

And the fools who can't understand that, it's their problem. If they can't handle a beautiful, elegant, smart SF movie, Jar Jar Abrams made a totally retard horrible ugly piece of shit movie for their pleasure. Have fun at that shit. I rather prefer the good smart stuff like TMP. I prefer good movies made by good talented filmamkers who respected their audiences's intelligence. Thank goodness that ST:TMP exists.

universe they call em singularities. Surprised Asimov didn't slam you guys for that one. Look goldsmith's score is the best- I'm just saying the new score describes a young wippersnapper version of the same crew to a good degree. The previous scores have a middle-age soul searching feel.

wrong again.a black hole is a celestial object which describes one of the various terminal outcomes of a star when it dies and which also happens to hide inside it a singularity.
<p>that's the common mistake that most people make,they equate a black hole and a singularity as the same thing but they are not.
<p>there are three different types of singularities.the two depend on whether the black hole rotates or not,the other describes a singularity which is not hidden inside a black hole,a naked singularity as i said above.
<p>so to sum up,no the black hole term is not a layman's term for the masses to understand it,it's an accepted scientific term used in the Astronomy to describe a celestial object with specific properties which one of them happens to be a singularity.a singularity is not a black hole.that's all.

...and that made it Star Trek, though it was by far the most Spock-y of all the movies. This story is where Spock finally, finally accepts his human half, which is especially clear when you see it with all the deleted scenes put back in. It's an *excellent* Spock story.

I'm mostly grateful for the Abrams take on Star Trek simply because I was so sick of Rick Berman's increasingly bland take on the subject. I enjoyed the uber-megawatt production design. I'm not at all convinced it's "really" Star Trek, but in any event, Berman HAD TO GO.

I've enjoyed the movie for it's good points (I've seen it since opening day about 20 times) but sadly there is much bad. THE GOOD: It's Trek and has the original cast.....the score is masterful.....some great FX.....a really good, thought provoking plot..,,,great sense of scope, just perfect. THE BAD: sloooooowwww pacing.....dry characterizations.....some very wooden delivery throughout.....with maybe two exceptions, a lack of serious tension/drama (see Wrath of Khan).....barely any action whatsoever.....finale was not very explosive.....

He wrote I am NOT Spock and then 20 years later he wrote another book called I AM Spock. Or, as he joked, "OK, maybe I am". He says the first title wasn't meant to be a rejection of Trek, but I can't remember what he said he did mean.

Paramount is apparently very open to redoing all effects for TNG, so it would make sense that they would also consider redoing the effect into 1080p for a future Bluray<P>Trek is paramounts whore, they are gonna consider everything if it means fans will buy the DVD's

Basically Nimoy wrote I am not Spock largely due to being type cast as an actor... Wrote I am Spock mainly to show fans he was no longer bitter it about after becoming a huge creative force with the film franchise.<p> Everyone is quick to point out Harve Bennet and Nicholas Meyers involvement in the films after ST:TMP...Nimoy also directed/produced/came up with pitches for the films too!!!!

I know, I know, I'm supposed to say TWoK is the best but I just can't, don't get me wrong, Khan is a great film but it doesn't grab me the way TMP does. I'm a really big fan of "classic" style film & this one has it in spades. Everything from the cinematography & the way it was edited to the sweeping orchestral score (heck, it even has an overture, the last film to have one if i'm not mistaken) This is just one of those projects where the script, producers, performers & a fantastic director came together to create something that will be enjoyed for generations to come.

We really need an EDIT button: anyway-
Budget
$35,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$11,926,421 (USA) (9 December 1979) (857 Screens)
Gross
$39,658,976 (USA) (23 December 1979)
$24,289,369 (USA) (16 December 1979)
$11,926,421 (USA) (9 December 1979)
$82,258,456 (USA)
$7,400,405 (UK)
$139,000,000 (Worldwide)
Weekend Gross
$12,075,000 (USA) (23 December 1979) (1 Screen)
$7,215,484 (USA) (16 December 1979) (857 Screens)
$11,926,421 (USA) (9 December 1979) (857 Screens)
Not exactly blowing the doors off the theaters, but it made its money back rather quickly. I saw it twice back then, but then movies were only $6 or so.
I loved TAS - "Yesteryear" was written by D.C. Fontana, a long time Trek writer and close friend to Roddenberry. It has been referenced so much that it is the only TAS episode accepted as canon. It did have a few other episodes that were also good - a few scripts were actually rewritten 'Phase II' scripts. Others were penned by other long time Trek collaborators (Bixby, Gerrold). It was a grown up show, telling (mostly) grown up stories that tried to utilize the fact that they could do stuff in animation that they could not afford to do in the real world. 'One of our Planets is Missing', is a good example. And of course, the original cast reprised their roles.

Yeah, I thought of that too when I saw it. Interesting change of scenery, but that's not exactly channeling the spirit of Matt Jeffries. It's an odd choice. More antimatter plasma, less fluids, please. The rest of the sets were fantastic, but I don't like the Iowa ret-con for the Mars shipyards.

They re-used it for TNG, and now that theme is more closely associated with TNG than with TMP. I remember being pleased how they'd seen fit to re-apply it though, I thought they'd buried it along with the rest of TMP, but it was too good to deny.

You should really refrain from commenting on scientific topics. This is not the first time that you have been totally off base when it comes to physics/astrophysics.<p>As Killik has correctly pointed out, the term "Black Hole" is the accepted SCIENTIFIC term for a stellar object which causes enough space-time curvature so as to create an event horizon.<p>Papers published in the leading physics and astrophysics journals which deal with this phenomena use the term, exclusively.<p>As a further correction to your post(s), only accreting black holes emit x-rays, due to the intense heating of infalling gas. Black holes that are not in the process of "feeding" do not emit any detectable radiation.

any sort of real-science here. (Too much erroneous information even to start.) But I'd like to point something out, since you seem up on your stuff.<br /><br />Black holes are always feeding, hence always emitting radiation. <br /><br />They are always feeding from the virtual particle/anti-particle pairs which are created in the vacuum. Those at the edge of the event horizon, in fact. (When an anti-particle is consumed, the particle can remain and escape, and the black holes mass is reduced ever so slightly.) This is a basic (and not entirely accurate) explanation of Hawking radiation. For every particle which "escapes" from the black hole in this fashion, a particle of equal mass must be lost.<br /><br />However, I understand that you probably meant when a black hole is feeding from actual material entering the hole. Gas, nebulae, whatnot, when yes they emit very visible x-rays, etc...<br />I only mention it at all because Hawking radiation was observed for the first time two months ago, and it's still on my mind.

That's why i said that a black hole is a type of singularity, and not the whole of them. If you say singularity, you are also including black holes. what we call black holes are basicially singularities created by the gravitational collapse of very big stars. there's other ways that singularities can be. The universe itselr could be considered a gigantic singularity, because of the ratio of mass/gravity it has, and also, because you can't escape from it once inside. You could say that a black hole is like the Tom Cruise in a cast of the movie, there's other actors in the movie, but the poster only names him.

So you are thankful because Jar Jar Abrams replaced blandness with shit? You know, i'd rather have the blandness, at least i could ignore it ands pretend it doesn't exist. Jar Jar Abream's shit, however, is too pernicious, malicious and insulting to ignore.<br><br>For all of Branon's fault,s at least i could tell from his work that he actually cared about Star and he really liked it, maybe a little bit too much, which turned Star Trek too much precious and made it incompreensible for newbies like myself, one would need a whole encyclopedia just to figure out the ebst way to go to the toilet in a federation spaceship. Abams, however, it's quite evident in his movie that he detests Star Trek, he thinks very little of it, and his despise shows through. But he sure loves Star Wars. By thanking Jar Jar Abrams for his work in Star Trek it also means i would be thanking him for turning ST into Sw, and thus decharacterize ST and what made it it's own show and have it's own identity. And i can't do that. I can't applause a man who is so egomaniac that he decided, because it would be easier for him, to change a whole franchise to be made in the image of another, and thus, homogenize the two biggest Sf franchises in existence. I can't do that. It's for that and many other things that i have no small amount of disregard and disrespect and disgust for Jar Jar Abrams. I detest the fucker.

I even forget ST:NEMESIS exists. but let me tell you this, for all it's faults, Nemesis actually bothered to have a theme, as in a real theme and nt just a plot point, something that Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK doesn't have, nor could bothered with. All of the St shows, be they epsiodes or movies, did made an effort to have a theme to them, in tune to the porpose and misison statement of it's creator Gene Roddenbery.<br><br>More: if you actually bother to notie, you will see that in fact Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREWK is a remake of ST: NEMESIS. Not only the Jar Jar movie rips off t«fro mthe same sourse as NEMESIS, which is, ST2:THE WARTH OF KAHN, but in fact the Jar Jar movie rips off NEMESIS as well. I find it hillarious when the Jar Jar Brewery Trek fanboys piss on Nemesis when they are just criticising the very movie that is one of the major inspiration for their precious bullshit movie. I'ts like pissing on dear daddy just so they can look good. It's stupid and clueless.<br><br>another thing that crakcs me up about the constant argument where the Jar Jar fanboys mutant geekoids use to try to make the Jar Jar trek look good is always the perpectual comparison with ST: Nemesis. Which a TNG movie. The Jar Jar movie is a TOS movie. Am i alone in thinking that this compasiron is not only wrong and misguided, but even malicious? It's a typical fallacy, to throw sand to the eyes by comparing a bad thing with another bad thing that has no real connection. If the Jar Jar Abramanittes wanted to really want to compare their favored movie, and if they had the strengh of their convictions, they would compare it with any of the TOS movies. and with the GOOD ONES. specialyl with THE WRATH OF KAHN. but never a Jar Jar Geekoid ever had the balls to compare their favoured bullshit dumb retard movie with ST:TWOK. Because those fallacious fools would know they would lose miserably. The trick to push up shit is to compare with another shit that has nothing to do wotu your shit andf fool others into your fallacy. This is why marketing was created.<br><br>Is ST: Nemesis a weak/bad movie? It is. But Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK is worst.

I did't liked the sets in Brewery Trek, not even the shiny flashy ones like the Enterprise bridge. The bridge looked all wrong. It's as if the production designer took inspiration from the reception lobby of an herbal pharmacy in a posh neighbourhood of LA. It's all kinds of wrong. Who would want to work in such an overlit palce, anyway? People would had migranes five minutes in that place. but the worst thing about Jar Jar Abrams's direction is that you are absolutly clueless about the physical relation between the spaces in any given set. all of them ar eshot in very thigh close ups and roaming cameras, and nothing makes any geophraphical sense. It's impossible to understand the lay of any given set just by watching the movie. Ironically, the on-set photos form the making off actually presents quite well how the set looks and it's spacial dimentions and spatial relations. The onset photographer is far more competent in how to present his photographic work then the two idiots who both directed and filmed the movie. They should had givne the movie to be directed by the onset photographer, at least he know how to visually present the scenes with any compreention.

Black holes don't emit gama-ray radiation because of some ballon gas expantion. i don't know where you got that info. The reason they emit is actually far more exotic, and it was first discovered by Stephen Hawkings himself.<br><br>they actually don't emit the radiation themselves, because nothing escapes from their gravity once crossed the event horizont. The radiation is created by the destruction of pair of "virtual" particles due to the gravity. "Virtual" particles ar a phenomenum that happens in the univers,e in that the vaccum of space is actually not a real vaccum, but it's "boiling" with the spontaneous emergence of particles that have extreme short lifespans, they pratically disapear as soon as they appear. This is why they are called virtual. But they are real. This phenomenum happens at the quantum level of the microscopic world, at the levle of subatomic particles. This virtual particles always come in pairs. One has negative mass and other positive mass, together their combined mass is null this is why they imediatly disapear. Whenever this particles pair pop up in a black hole's event horizont, the pair is broken and one half falls inside the black hole and the other, due to the energy released by the break, reaches escape velocity and travels out in the opposite direction of the center of mass of the black hole. This half of the pair that escapes is what creates the gama-ray emitions we see emited by the black hole. so, in the true sens eof the word, the black holes themsleves don't emit gama rays, not form their own, but they cause them. As for the other pair that falls in, things became even more exotic. When the half pair that falls in is the one with negative mass, it causes a strange phenomenum, which it, when negative mass interact with positive mass, they nullifuy each other. a similiar process to the met of matter and anti-matter. but i'm talkign aobut diferent things. Anti-matter has positive mass, it's only the leectric charges of it's constituent parts or oposite to normal mass. When negative mass interacts with the mass in the black hole, particle by particle it nulifies, and thus, makes the mass in the black hole smaller. particle by particle the black hole loses mass. A phenonemum that makes scientists say that with time the black hole "evaporates" into nothingness. Again, it was Stephen hawkings who discovered this phenomemum, which have been proved by observation. So, black holes are not eternal either, they eventually end into nothingless. Only it will takes them hundred of billions of years to happen.<br><br>Happy?

There are black holes who are feeding on nearby celestial bodies, like that famous pair of star-black hole whose name escapes me. But most of the time, their radiation occurs as you said it, as your description of the Hawkings radiation. Beside,s i though the hawkings radiation had already been proved right right a few years after Hawkings published his theory. I'd like to know what was the more recent discovery about the Hawkings radiation you are talking about.<br><br>And it's great to see another astronomy fan in here. It's my favorite science. Have you ever seen the British TV WONDERS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM? It's presented by the british physician Dr Brian Cox, who was one of the scientific advisers of the movie SUNSHINE. It's a great show.<br><br>for me the greatest wonderful thing about Star Trek,and in which i also include ST:TMP, is that it inspired young kids to became scientists so they could learn and understand the universe for the benefit of all mankind. you think the Jar Jar Abrams's moie will ever inspire any kid to becaome a scientist and help advance the knolwedge of mankind about the universe? I think not.

The flaws in ST:TMP are vastly overmatch by the movie's stengths. Jar Jar Abram's STINO is only made of flaws and mistakes and errors and idioticy and cluelessness and incompetence and stupidity. I prefer the ST:TMP movie, then.

... to know more about the universe, to dream of a better kinder future.<br><br>Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK inspires kids to make retard appologetic coments in defense of their favoured movie based on total bullshit.

you are waiting for Trek to return to the old school intellectual themes but thats never gonna happen with a blockbuster movie. JJ wanted to make a movie that attracts audiences, that was clear from the start thats what JJ is about. If you want the "old" star trek, then you just have to look elsewhere. The only one i can think of is SGU, there is nothing else really that is space opera and science fiction.

I'm affraid you are very right about it, my friend. You really hit the nail in the head. And I think you are absolutly right when you sai that the type of stories that St sused to tell, and specialyl a more thoughful movie like ST:TMP will never be made again in this era of blockbusters. I mean, it's no mere coincidence that ST got a new life in cinema when they turned the TOS franchise into a more adventure type stories.<br><br>but here's what i also think: i think it's possible to deliver smart stories, and timely comentary in the format of an adventure blockbuster movie. The Wrath Of kahn, while not as cerebral and meditative as TMP, still mannaged to be a smart story with some important themes and ideas in the midle of all that adventure fun. So did Star Trek 3 and 6. And look at the recent example of INCEPTION, a thougful almost cerebral smart movie which also worked brillantly as an adventure/action/heist story. You know what i mean? And that movie was a gigantic sucess at the box office, surpassing the 800 million dollars mark, far out-earning the more populist Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK.<br><br>So, my point is: while you are very right and i agree with you that in today's blockbuster Hollywood we will never see the likes of such movies as 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSSEY or STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, i can't see why smart intleligent adventure stories which also have themes and some deep thoughs to them cannot be made. Specially considering that two of the smartest blockbusters made recently, THE DARK KNIGHT and INCEPTION, were also two of the biggest commercial sucesses of the recent years, then i have to conclude that, contrary to common wisdom, even among the geekry, audiences are really hungry for smart intelligent stories delivered in grandiose spectacular fashion in the form of a major blockbuster. Intelligent stories told in an epic scales it the most pelasing, most mind blowing, the greatest theater experience one can have, a total film experience. And i think audiences want that. Adn whilemany still cattle themselves to watch dumb blockbusters, there is also a big hunger to watch intleligent blockbusters as well. And while only Nolan makes them, his movies will be top earners because he's the only one tapping that underestimated and overlooked market.

Better than the WRATH OF KHAN costumes, which look very uncomfortable. Also, they make the crew look fat. Of course, nothing beats the original TV series costumes, and I'm glad Abrams used them for his movie.

ST:TMP couldn't had the pacing that ST:TWOK has. It would be wrong for the story that TMP told. Listen, Robert Wise started his career as an EDITOR. And he edited CITIZEN KANE. So, yeah, Wise could edited a movei fast if the story needed it. ST:TMP needed a different type of pacing then what worked well for ST:TWOK. Wise did what he needed to do to serve the movie best. When Wise re-edited TMP in 2001 for the directo's cut, the changes are not that big. some scenes are shortned, but the mood and the flow and the pacing was left intact. The DSC cut is far less different then the original theatrical cut then popular opinion make it out to be. Another geek dogmatic fallacy nonsense that populates this place and is taken as dogmatic truth, for reasons nobody really understands.

Yeah, i have to say, the original costumes redesigned with today's aestetics didn't worked too bad in Jar Jar Abram's movie.
and that is nothe rof those incompreensible things about the fucking movie. This arbitraruy decision form Jar Jar Abrams to say true to some details of classic Trek, like the coloured uniform costumes and the admiral beagle and the jeffrey tubes orange ladders, while whipping his ass and shitting on the truly deeper and more important things that made Star trek what it was. That Jar Jar Abrams retard idiot fuck cared so much about pratically useless and unimportant details while shitting all over what really mattered. Who the fuck is this assclown, anyway? Who the fuck this pedantic pustulent pussy ass fuck thinks he is?

I never had a chance to see the Director's Cut of TMP. And i'm sure there were subtle changes but without the additional scenes to replace the omitted ones(Via Edit)it sounds like a shorter version oof the theatrical release.TMP had some good ideas, but I wasnt happy about it's overall execution.But it easily surpasses the shit wreck that was ST Generations.(OK, I understand your frustrations to Abrams Trek to some degree, but please don't tell me you thought generations was good.)<p>I'm still curious to find out what scenes/footage Cam had added in the recent Avatar Spec Ed.As good as the Uniforms were in ST 2009 (yes, it is all about the aestetics with many Hollywood Directors these days.)the film, for the most part is forgettable but i did like the performances of both Karl Urban and Zach Quintaro and the main theme wasn't too bad.TWoK had a soul (kirk feeling his age, the revelation of him being a Father and of course Khan Singh's motivation for revenge.) and unexpected pathos (No one saw Spock's demise coming.)So regardless of all the "flash" and "bang", this new Trek is devoid of substance in comparison to a film that came out over Twenty Years ago.

The kind of anger you're directing at JJ is the kind of anger I still feel at Shatner for ST5 (for different but equally passionate reasons). And yes, Braga/Berman by the end had become EXACTLY THAT bland. So I guess you could say I'm a bit jaded to begin with. Now if I want to get all cuddly with ST, I just stick to beloved reruns. Heck, I was watching the animated version just yesterday and it still had that beloved childhood toy vibe to it. The era of new Treks that we can love effortlessly is probably over. I'm sorry you can't find anything redeemable with JJ's (I can, but I know what you mean, so I won't argue with you), but don't worry about JJ too much... I'm assuming this new ST will last about one trilogy, after which somebody else will reboots it again. Sadly, that seems to be the new order of things. Don't like a franchise? Wait.

I don't think any of the ST sets would pass the "if people really worked in this environment" test. The sounds alone prove that... I once made an hour-long background of the bridge sound effects from the TOS bridge to play in my computer office as a joke, and it went from "nifty beloved sounds I had heard my whole life" to "turn that @%#^ off!!!" in about five minutes.

I clearly remember the build up to the release - being twelve when it hit the screen in original run.<p> The Year long anticipation on the order of the build up for Superman.<p> Ads on the back of every comic book I bought for a year. Persis Khambatta! A motivated fan base of which I was proudly a member. Too young to be a true trekkie or trekker or whatever, too young to recall the TV show in its original release, but proudly staking claim as an early and devoted follower in it's syndicated run.<p> This movie was going to out do Star Wars - at least that is what we thought back then. <p> I stated in subject that I thought ignoring the three leads and ego were the biggest flaws - as to ego and to some extent pandering to the base-I believe it came down to this: Roddenberry wanted to show the world that his vision of the future which had been rejected initially by the viewing public, but subsequently found life in the unprecedented syndicated success of the TV, would translate to the big screen and trump the 'hyperactive' world of Star Wars. <p> The Pandering issue was that he played to his vocal base of support who passionate, did not nearly represent the entirety of the Star Trek viewing public. <p> Yes, we (the non super fans) loved the thought provoking stories and fleshed out characters of Star Trek. We loved the playful interaction between the leads. But we also loved the action and the true star of the TV show the old girl herself - the Enterprise. <p> What truly diminished TMP though was the utter lack of character interplay.<p> The Kirk-Spock-Bones dynamic is what made the TV show special. This movie threw that out the airlock. That Khan was such a mammoth success was mostly due to a return to action story telling balanced by the undeniable chemistry of the three leads. <p> The motion Picture - or as my friends and I called it at the time - the Slo-Motion Picture, has some good ideas, but they were packaged the wrong way for this viewer.

Spock gives everybody the silent treatment for awhile due to his emotionless Vulcan retreat at the beginning, and Kirk is standoffish at first, but other than that, aren't all three of them pretty much in character? Especially Bones. True, they're stuck in this weird blue and depressing place that used to be all red and perky. But it still felt like Star Trek to me (just the very serious and grim version).

The old Trek may have inspired kinds to pursue an interest in science, but the new Trek inspires interest in technology... not of space, but the technology required to make the movie itself. Good or bad? Not sure, but we'll probably need more young physicists than young special effects technicians.

pre-warp/pre-1st contact world with an atv and leaving tire tracks everywhere. Fuck anti-gravity and the prime directive. Oh and the data brother shit was.. I don't want to insult the handicapped. And could we make Charles Bronson any more un-appealing in his 1st role. That guy is awesome. Here was my idea for the next gen movies back in the day. After 1st contact I would have made Startrek Continuum. Q would have returned to bookend the shit yet again and you could have signed off that crew on a high note. Instead they just let it fizzle out with 2 more shit movies. Where is the next gen reboot with young Picard and gang? Who is hot enough to play crusher? Where is my Robotech movie with all female bridge?! WTF?!

If that dynamic worked for you in TMP, that is fine. It did not for me.<p> Khan and the subsequent films - to me, embodied the true character interplay that made the TV show such a success. <p>I think the addition of so many extraneous characters and the 'bigger is better' philosophy diminished TMP. It does not feel like a real Star Trek movie. I admit, it had a spectacle about it, but that was not enough to make is Star Trek for me.

First off, STOP comparing Trek to Star Wars, two very distinct and unique beasts. One is sci-fi, the other fantasy!!!! Only idiots and snobs do that shit.
The characters coldness was by design I think. Could be wrong, but it feels that way, until Spock is brought on board and the crisis solved.
I love TMP, it's the only Trek film that tells a real sci-fi story and the films would have continued on like this had Roddenberry not been such a douche. The film was a hit, the studio was just pissed at the runaway costs and the back-stage antics of Roddenberry and how he treated the writers.
THe only odd numbered was stated by idiots who were not fans so they can eat a dick.

I know what you mean. It felt like Star Trek got sucked into an Arthur C Clarke movie, which I sort of liked. Of course, TWOK utterly rules, but it's a drastically different movie. I love how they film the starships in that movie as if they were sailing ships, only occasionally breaking a sense of a 2D plane.

...it drowns out the shrillness that is pervasive in certain talkbacks. Well said, Tal. I remember the hype leading up to TMP as well. The hour long wait on line to get in on the day the release. And I remember a friend of mine commenting as we left the theater, "Well, as least they'll make another one now." It did seem like appeasement to me at the time, and now as well. Spock seemed forced into the story (the whole warp shuttle thing), and I never really felt the dynamic. Contrast that with the camping scene in the opening of ST:V (and yes, that movie was painful in so many ways), when Kirk says he knew he wouldn't die because he wasn't alone, or the 'mushmellons' campfire scene. To me, Trek has always been about the 'Holy Trinity', if you will, of the three main characters. I love the Enterprise in all its forms, but all the beauty shots in the world do not a Motion Picture make. An it's suprising, considering how well crafted the characterizations were in 'Strain' (yes, I had forgotten that movie too - have it on VHS somewhere). Let's face it, 'TMP' didn't have the best script in the world to work with to begin with. Wise did the best he could with what he had. I wonder how much he had to do with the actual editing? IMDB lists Todd Ramsay as editor, and his next 2 films were two of my faves: "Escape From NY", and "The Thing", neither of which suffered from any kind of terminal 'dragginess'. Perhaps the director (Carpenter in those cases) has a bit more to do with that then anyone else.

The film cost so much because it was in pre-production nearly 5 years before it finally started shooting. Several scripts were written, one called, "Planet of the Titans" is fucking awesome, and several writers were paid, but their services never required. This has always been factored in with the films overall costs, much like "Superman Returns" as it took nearly a decade to get started.
TMP is a sight to behold! How can anyone begrudge a film with the V'ger spacewalk or Goldsmith's masterpiece of a score?

SAT:Generations is one of those bland movies i barely remember they exist. The only thing that gave that movie some notoriety, so to speak, was how Kirkm died like a punk-ass. Lamest death ever for a big hero. It's as if we knew that Spock had died while in the bathroom taking a shit, totally embaracing!

It was only after i had the dispelasure to watch Jar Jar Abrams's STINO that i finally brough myself to watch the whole of the TOS series. Whiel i have always knew and heard of Star Trek since i was a little kid, the truth of thematter is that i never had seen the whole of it. Hell, i hadn't evne seen a full season. So, in the summer of 2009, i bought the DVDs of the series, and yes, i bought the remastered versions. And as i watched the TOS show, series by series, well, not only the shows proved to me something i already knew about Star Trek, but made me even aprpeciate it even more then i did: the show is incredibly well writen, incredibly smart, and ver well done, regardless of the scarcity of the budget and the carboard sets. St was a show aimed for kids and teens, but so much of it is also directed at adults. The show is like THE TWILIGHT ZONE had been before, an entertaiment show officially aimed for kids, but which provided everything for everybody, kids and adutls alike. In fact, in my adult years, i appreciate even more the show, because now i understand and notice the nuances and subtleries and themes which for a kid might go by but for an adult they are pertinent and timely. While i was never anor i am a Trekkie, i am a fan of a show. and i can't help but feel that what Jar Jar Abrams did with his movie is a complete shameless betrayal of all that ST used to stand by. And of that i also include the TOS movies.<br><br>I lvoe many of the TOs movies that many do, i also sing the praises of ST2 and ST6, the Meyer movies. I also appreciate St movies which many wrongly claim to be weak or bad, like the underrated STAR TEK 3: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. but if ther eis ONE St movie that truly fills me with awe, that presents spectacle and thoughfulness and themes and a marvelous fantastic adventure that both stired my emotions and my mind, and that movie is STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. I have a love for it that no Jar Jar Abrams Fellatio Brigade can ruin. TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is A MOVIE, it is A FILM. The title is totally apt. For me, that movie has been a keeper since i first saw it in my early teens. I love it.

You canot balme the mvoei if it dfddin't measured to the hype and if it didn't became a new Star Wars. The movie was not suppsoed to be a new Star Wars, it was suppsoed to be STAR TREK. You cannt blame the movie for your own trap you felt into. And you are a big boy now, you are an adult, it's timefor you to get over it and start to see the movie with the eys of an adult, instead of the impressionable kid you once where who bought the whole hype line hook and sinker. When people say that ST:TMP is a movie for a more adult, more mature, more pacient audience, they aren't kidding.

I recall hoping that we would get a second feature when I left the theater - but it was not a sure thing for quite a while.<p> Yes,the movie made money - but it was far less than had been expected for the amount invested as well as the returns on two comparable releases (Star Wars and Close Encounters). I feel I should add for those who are hung up on semantics that my usage of the word: Comparable, in this instance is not genre related but refers to magnitude. <p> My lack of enjoyment of TMP had nothing to do with an inability to appreciate slower moving movies - although because Arthur C. Clarke and 2001 and often mentioned I must say that as a child of the 70's watching 2001 on broadcast television was a chore indeed. It was a two day 'event' chock full of commercials. Not until I saw the commercial free version on HBO in the early 80's did I fully appreciate the genius of that movie. <p> Yes, the nautical references in TWOK are wonderfully realized and are a direct reference to the incredible TV episode (I will have to look the title up) that had a stand off between a Roumlan Bird of Prey and the Enterprise -and although given the fact they were in space, the 'slightest noise' issue was not really applicable, it still was a truly landmark Star Trek ep.

There is no way the new Trek movie by Jar Jar Abrams can a inspire anybody into anything. Not evne in the mvoie making process. To watch and aprpeciate the Jar Jar Abrams movie, you need to reduce yourself to the intelligence of a retarded baboon, which robs you of any and all critical and inquisitive though. The new movie doesn't invite though, it abhores it, it's even it's enemy. You canno0t, you must's think to appreciate Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK. To often people who have enjoyed the mvoie, and even have pointed to it's flaws, have said "but it's a mindless fun movie, and if you check your brain at the door you will have fun". That's the mantra that been going on about Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK since it has been first released, that you haveto watch it in the spirit of a dumb fun movie, to check the brain at the door. Which was soemthign the earlier, proper Star Trek movies and Tv shows never asked, quite the contrary, they invited though and analisis and thinking and debate. And not debate about why the movie fucking sucks ass (or why one should compeltly abnegate our own's intelligence to appreciate a dumb retard movie), but debate about the themes it presented.

The episode you are refering to is called BALANCE OF TERROR and is my personal favorite episode of TOS. One of the things that makes Star Trek appealing to me is that it's in fact the navy in space, and as a son of a naval sergeant (his speciality was submarines) myself, and that i have loved Sf as far i can remember, it was just natural for me to gravitate toward Star Trek and enjoy it. The fact the show is also incredibly smart helps a hell of a lot.

I have indeed watched the movie as an adult. Three times in fact - the last time being about three years ago.<p> One of the true joys of watching a movie many years later that you saw as a child, is when you are still enthralled by that movie. That the enjoyment factor has not changed. It allows you to recapture some of that magic you experienced as a child.<p> When you can watch a movie as an adult and find that you enjoy it far more than you did when you first saw it as a child, such as I described in an above post about how I came to truly enjoy and appreciate the genius of 2001 upon seeing it commercial free as an adult, well that is like seeing a great movie for the first time. <p> I had hoped for a similar revelation upon my viewings of TMP. Alas, that was not the case. <p> It does not surprise me at all that TMP has a loyal fan base. <p> I hold no rancor for anyone who genuinely appreciates that movie -we all have our own tastes. <p> It would be a very dull world indeed if we all agreed on everything.

Yup, you know a movie is bad when the death scene of an iconic scifi character was beyond bullshit. And despite my dismay with Alien 3, I thought Ellen's (Ripley) death scene was well done to the extent that I was stunned and saddend while thinking to myself "whatdefuck... that goddamn Fincher.."!! <p>but for kirk to fall off a cliff was one of the dumbest suggestions in cinema history.

I've been watching Trek since I was born (and a season of TOS was viewed in utero). I'm almost as old as the franchise itself. I love and hate stuff about nearly every incarnation of Trek, but until Enterpoop and Nemesis came along, I kept watching. The TOS is great, but there are good and bad episodes ("Spock's Brain", anyone?). It's really had its ups and downs. I love it like a baseball team, so I stick around. At this point I feel JJ's Trek has to pass the test of time before it can be truly praised or condemned since what he's trying to do has never been attempted before. I don't agree that he doesn't care about Trek, though his love mostly shows up in the form of TOS easter eggs and production design (he has indeed been paying attention to every Trek production ever made). I say let him finish this trilogy (?) and if it sucks, we'll all forget it soon anyway. Trek will survive a few stinkers.

I get it Asimov, you hate the JJ movie and no amount of desecration of its corpse will be enough for you. That's how I feel about ST5. I found JJs movie to be superior to all other Treks in ONE respect... the sound design. Not the score, but the sound effects. Heavy Handed as all get-out but it was amazing stuff. Ben Burtt (Star Wars) was involved with some of it, for better or worse. Did all those zip-zaps belong in a Star Trek movie? Not sure, but ah hell, I loved it. I love all the sound effects of all the incarnations of Trek, but this one was a doozy and it made creative "re-mix" use of all the existing, classic sound effects (particularly the transporter).

I don't think much of the sound design of Jar Jar Abrams's RETARD TREK. I see no brillance in it whatsoever. It was just another lound movie in the vein of any Michel Bay movie, the major stylistic inspiration for Jar Jar Abrams when he made his retard piece of shit of a movie. sorry, but not even in that i can't go with you about what's good about the Jar Jar abomination. The sound did absolutly nothing for me. If you want to be in awe about the soudn design of a recent movie, check out MASTER AND COMMANDER.<br><br>i have said before that the only thing i can say about Jar Jar Abrams's ABSOLUTLY RETARD PIECE OF SHIT OF A MOVIE TREK has to be some of the cast. Not the whole of the cast, just some of it. Karl Urban and Zackary Quinto deserve the accolades they got. unliek many of the geekoids her,e iw asn't suprised that Urban did a good acting job, because he always does. And Bruce Greenwood was great, as he always is. But there's some actors in the Jar Jar movie that they really irritated me beyond belief, and those are soem of themost popular ones that people went totally gay for, which was that Chris Pine clown and Mrss black Guetto Princess Zeo Saldana, i fucing hated how Pine played Kirk and i have nothign but total aversion and hatred for the way Saldana murdered the characte rof Uhura, turning one of the classiest falem character in the whole history of Sf into a fucking anoying cunt of a bitch! Fuck that bitch, was she anoying!

... but in the end it defeated me. I caled quits after trying. I figured that if i have to make an effort to like a movie, then it's not worth it. It's one thign to make an effort to udnerstand a movie because the movie is very smart and subtle and demands thinking to get it. It's another thing to make an effort to liek it. In the end, ST: Generations is just a big exercise in blandless. The only things i like about that movie is whenever Patrick Stewart is onscreen and is talking. That man can make the reading of a phone directory interesting and enthralling.

Quinto did a great job even if he doesn't have Nimoy's baritone. Urban was very good though nobody can replace Kelly! Some of the bit players were great at their bits. I'm pretty neutral on everybody else, including Pine, who does a good job capturing young Kirk's arrogance but not his stammering wonder at it all.

I disagree about the sounds being like Bay (them's fightin' words!) but granted they weren't exactly subtle in their delivery. I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of "ray gun" (etc) sounds and really, really enjoyed these. However the mix was very LOUD and I found I liked it better at home with a volume control than I did in the theater. You're right that Master and Commander is a masterpiece of sound design (I've studied it a bit and love listening to everything Richard King has done ever since then) but it's going for something far more naturalistic, obviously, than a Star Trek movie possibly could. There's a place for ZAP ZAP ZAP and Trek always had its shoot-em-up ray gun side, JJ didn't make that up. And those sorts of sounds aren't easy to come up with, especially now that there are decades of them that sound editors and sound designers have to improve upon. I admire whoever came up with all that stuff.

from what i can recall(the movie was forgetable for obvious reasons.) was how Kirk and picard tried to stop some guy named Zoran from setting off a bomb/rocket and how Kirk was killed in the process.(explosion/falling to his death)which came off uninspired and lazy even for a death scene. Was this the idea of 'passing the baton"?<p>I heard that Shatner was involved in some novel in which Kirk is ressurected via The Borg.now that sounds like a more interesting premise than most of TNG based films. Unfortunately, they couldn't "Make it so".And yes, Stewart has one of the coolest voices in the sci fi medium.I, like so many suggested him for Prof X way before the film (X-Men) came into fruition.He's also great in Castlevania LoS.<P>Asi, FYI Zoe is Dominican and puerto Rican and not Black. Yeah, she fooled me too and as weak as her performance (Lt. Uhura) was in "STINO", I would still hit that. :P

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. As I originally said, a non-accreting black hole emits no DETECTABLE radiation. The theorized Hawking radiation is NOT detectable. X-ray sources in the sky which eminate from postulated black holes are due to radiation caused by the heating of infalling gas in the black holes accretion disc. Typically, this means it is part of a binary pair, and is tearing gas off from it's companion star.<p>I repeat, Hawking radiation from a stellar black hole is completely undetectable.

In your specific reply to me, you state: "Black holes don't emit gama-ray radiation because of some ballon gas expantion."<p>Where the hell did I ever write that. I don't even know what you mean by "ballon gas expansion"???? What the hell is that?<p>The friction caused by the high speed and collisions from infalling gas of an accreting black hole creates temperatures so high that radiation is emitted in the X-Ray region of the spectrum.

WHY haven't they started already? Give us some "The Best Of Both Worlds", throw it out (DVD and Bluray), test us, if we like it (hint: We'd LOVE and BUY it!) and then think of the long road to remaster all of TNG. <p> No hasty remastering though... just throw us a stone, give it money, thought and time... and MAKE IT SO, Paramount!!!

...the painful process of COMPLETELY re-edit and remaster every episode, for that they edited everyting on video - back in the days, where they all could save money by doing so. <p> Yes, they would have to completely re-do all the sfx, basically produce the whole show from the scratch - save the thespians... <p> DO IT!!!

Kudos to the LOST apprentice who became The Master! Don't know who originated those, but I followed your footsteps to reach that level. <p> Your comments on LOST where sometimes unnerving, but the end justified the means... if you, what I mean.

The conjunction to use as a comparator is than, not then. T_H_A_N. This word can also be used as a preposition, as in "Shatner is a director than whom it is impossible to imagine anyone more arrogantly incompetent." But this is somewhat ineloquent.
You insist on going on your misinformed tirades, without even a small command of the English language using "then for "than."
In actuality, the word then can serve as an adverb, an adjective, or a noun, but it is NEVER a conjunction or preposition.
Were you sleeping during Schoolhouse Rock?
If you insist on throwing your shitty opinions around like monkeys throw their shit around at the zoo, at least make an effort to express them, such as they are, properly.

I don't know why people keep on presuming that kirk as a young lad had to be an arrogant asshole. That's just bullshit that the Jar Jar Abrams's movie pulled out of the ass to sell their bullshit version of Kirk. In the TOS episode SHORE LEAVE, Kirk himself described he was a stack of book on legs at his time at the Academy. Bascially, Kirk when he was young he was a nerd. A nerd who man upped partially thanks to theconstant bullying he suffered from Flanneghan, who forced young Kirk to defend himself and raise to his bully and defy him. This was part of the genesis of what became the later Kirk we knew, the courageous, galant, intleligent and well-read captain of the Enterpise.<br><br>The notion that a young Kirk was an arrogant sob is nonsense. It's crpa invented by Jar Jar Abrams and his two assclowns Orci and Kurtzman so they could sell their own stupid version of Kirk which is fully based on Tom Cruise's characer from TOP GUN. How the people fell into their lies unquestionably is beyond reason. What the fuck does that Jar Jar Abrams have on people that he can make people believe all his bullshit without people questioning him? Why does people take all his crap on faith?

Saldana is a black caribbean. In fact, most of the population in the caribbeans are blacks descendent from former black slaves. Many blacks in USA are actually descendent form those caribbean slave,s and not direct imports form Africa, and myth would make us believe. andi hav enothing to say agains Saldana in terms of her beauty. She is one very pretty woman, no doubt about that. The DP of BREWERY TREK must have fallen inlove with her, how swell she was photographed in that movie. but her acting is somethign to be desired. I detested her interpretation of the character Uhura with a passion. she plays it all as if she's some guetto princess. I wasn't even suprised they didn't used the song "No Scrubs" by TLC whenever she told Kirk off in the movie. Saldana made Uhura abominable and hateful for me, and Uhura is one of my top favorite characters in the TOS show. Can you imagine how upset i might be because of that?

I'm not going to disagree with that. ST:First Contact is half a good movies, sad to say. The other half i just can't take it anymore. So much so thati have avoided rewatching that movie, because i just don't want to have that schizofrenic experience of going from a good mvoie to a bad movie from a change of scene.

I'm not wrong about Brewery Trek. Nor iam wrong about the despise and deinteres that Jar Jar Abrams has about ST, he has said so in interviews, the arrogant fool.<br><br>Let this be your litmus test: given the chocie, which would you prefer to watch, TOS or Jar Jar Abram's abominable version? If you were in a desert island, and you cojld only have one DVD, which would it be, any TOS series or movie or Jar Jar Abram's STINO? The answer will be very telling.

"90% of the eps were completely forgettable. Without Patrick Stewart that show would have been god damn awful."<br><br>I' not very knowledgable about TNG, i have seen like a dozen episodes at most, spreaded out from different seasons. But Patrick Stewart was always, always watchable in that show. He makes that show, as far i'm concerned. I do reember that the first tiem i saw any of the TNG was from a VHS tape that had the two parts pilot. I already knew Stewart as an actor thanks to Excalibur, Dune and the Tv show I, Claudius. When Stewart played Picard, he was an already know actor to me, and i though, evne back then, that he was a brillant choice to play a charismatic starship captain, a worthy sucessor to Shatner's mantle. I have always ben a fan of Patrick Stewart as far i can remember seeing him onscreen for the first time. The man is pure quality. In fact, as much as i love TOS, i do think that Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard is the best ever starship captain of the whole of the ST universe. And i love Kirk.

You whining nerds are so boring. Every one of these forums you morons whine about everything. I'm a big fan of the original series and to my surprise I actually enjoyed the new movie and thought while not perfect it stayed true to the spirit of the original series. It's main purpose was to re establish the characters which it achieved successfully. Even Nimoy said that the people who were behind it 'got it' and wouldn't have agreed to do it otherwise. In conclusion SHUT THE FUCK UP!

The Kobayashi Maru test from TWOK, now elevated to holy cannon? A billion ex fiances from TOS? Yes, he's book smart smart, but so was Bill Clinton! He's always been a stallion. There's PLENTY of characterizations of him this way. Also, there are lots of inconsistencies in TOS so an exception or two describing his background is no big deal. He was James R Kirk at one point. Not saying you have to like Pine because of this. Though I agree Uhura was unrecognizable as the old character (nothing against the actress... it was clearly this way in the script, too)... though to be fair in most episodes Uhura hardly did anything but her job anyway, as did all the minor characters.

WRONG.ST:FC was the last great ST Movie,in fact in some ways it is even even better than WOTK.
<p>ST:FC is essentially NuTrek but without its flaws: like NuTrek it is sexy,energetic,cool and fun but in contrast to NuTrek it has a good story to tell,characters to admire,soul and content which dont insult the intelligence of the audience or try to bring emotions with a provoking manner.
<p>but most importantly it doesnt have fanboy/geek references for the shake of fanboy/geek references like NuTrek did in such an uncontrolled and indiscreet way.

...I agree that FC was the last best ST flick - 'Insurrection' was so bad as to be unwatchable (It's the movie I don't own). I'll differ and say that TWOK was the best TOS film, and FC was the best TNG movie (and where's my DS9 film? Why no love?). If you want to nitpick every film, they all have flaws (I didn't care for the casting of James Cromwell as Cochrane for example, just MHO). If you take 'NuTrek' for what it is, a retcon aimed at bringing in a younger audience/demographic, I think it succeeded. It doesn't claim perfect continuity with ANY iteration of Trek, and there's a lot about it I didn't care for. However, I was suprised at how much I liked (the opening with Kirk's dad, the byplay between Kirk & Sulu when Kirk asks him what weapon he majored in : 'Epee', and then Sulu proceeds to kick ass). I've been a fan of Trek ever since it's been around (yeah, I'm old), and I haven't always liked or agreed with what has been done with the franchise (cough *'Enterprise'* cough), but who knows? Perhaps the next film will be the 'Khan' of the series, and all the naysayers will be talking about how they loved the first film after all.

will be awesome.i will give him this chance as a benefit of doubt,since the reboot of ST with the intention to appeal to both old and new generations,as a whole was a very difficult project to start with.
<p>BUT on the other hand,i gave the same chance to Bay with the TF2 sequel after watching his decent TF intro movie,and we all know how that movie turned out to be.
<p>and the fact that the same writers are behind the TF2 and NuTrek2 sequels,dont give me much confidence for the final outcome..

Hawking radiation from a stellar source has NOT been detected, and probably never will.<p>You are mistaken, and are probably thinking of a recent "laboratory" expirement in which "Hawking Radiation" was simulated using lasers and refractive properties of a glass block. This is NOT true Hawking radiation, and in no way does it involve a geniune, cosmological black hole.<p>Here is a link to an article you are probably thinking of:<p>
http://www.universetoday.com/75256/hawkingish-radiation-observed/<p>
I repeat, the theorized Hawking radiation from a stellar black hole is many orders of magnitude too weak to be detected by any present or even postulated near future technology.

It was assumed to be too weak to be detected, but it was, in the spectrum of the gama rays. Hawkings radiation is not some mysterious different type of electromagnitism, it's gama rays that has been observed and detected to be emited from black holes. Caused by the breakdown and the escaping of the one of the pair of those virtual particles that pop at the black hole's event horizont. that it was already observed and proved correct is what made hawking's name and why he became such an household name, also because it proved that there can be a link and a relationship between quantum physics and einstentian relativity.

I am sorry, but you are mistaken in regards to there being any actual detection of Hawking radiation from a stellar black hole source.<p>The temperature of the theorized Hawking radiation from a 30 Solar mass black hole (as an example) is an incredibly small 2×10^-9 Kelvin, which is a billion times lower then the CMB radiation...so any photons from HR are in the ultra low Radio frequency (and would be completely swamped by the CMB radiation, anyway). Furthermore, the luminosity is so low as to be almost infinitesimal. Due to these two constraints, no conceivable means of detection of Hawking radiation from a stellar black hole is possible or even foreseeable.

Your insistence is giving me pause. I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up, anyway. This is what i love about science and the people, like you, do also love science: it spurs debate. Which is great. The way i think, in science you never lose, you only get to know more.

...I don't get on you for your spelling, because I understand English isn't your first language. I call you douchebag because of your shrill, self important, self righteous, condescending posts. Your inability to stop and think that you might be incorrect about something. Your belief that anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a 'Retard' or 'Stupid'. You think beause you bought the 1st season of TOS on DVD in '09 (!!?) that you are some sort of expert on Classic Trek. Please...! James Kirk was NEVER a nerd. He said he was SERIOUS. "Bones, I was positively grim!" Finnegan appears to him on the Shore Leave planet because Jim always wanted to kick his ass. Show a little more knowledge of IDIC (look it up). Now go ahead and flame away: I've already placed you on my own personal 'ignore' list, and don't plan on reading anymore of your incessant whining about 'NuTrek'. At one time I would have simply agreede to disagree. Not anymore. You have no 'cred' with me anymore. I always wondered why no one here shredded you after your bullshit posts - now I finally understand - it's not worth the time spent.

I usually don't resort to personal attacks, although they seem to be the norm here - it's very unJoaquin-like of me. I just couldn't take anymore, and had to unleash the 'Douchehammer'. My apologies again to all of you who post thoughtfully and insightfully.

I'm not an expert in classic Trek, as you call it. I just know what a hsitty movie is when i see one,and Jar Jar Abrams's STINO is one of them. and i know what a good movie is when i see one, and STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is one. As for my "incessant whining" about STINO, it's compeltly proportional to the brainless gushing that went on when the movie was release,d when everybody were kissing and sucking Jar Jar Abrams's cock. If anything, i still have a few good years of "whinning" until it balances out.

I'd like to see your spelling in any language other then your own. Which, of cours,e you can't, because you know none. When an ignorant like you dares to complain, it makes you look retard. Which you are.

That's the best approach: just ignore him. He will never change...just when you think you can have a normal conversation with him, those thoughts are quickly retracted when he gets on his pedastal and declares he's right and everyone else is wrong.

...they pretty much wrapped that storyline up into a nice little package with the series finale.<p>
The way TNG ended was clearly a set-up for a bunch of movies, what with Q telling Picard that he'd continue to monitor their adventures (in Q-Vision, undoubtedly).<p>
But DS9 didn't end with any similar promise of more stories. The narrative was pretty much over.